POLL PROPOSAL CONDEMNED

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21759, 16 April 1936, Page 12

POLL PROPOSAL CONDEMNED

CHRISTCHURCH ESTUARY PORT MB J. W. BEANLAND CRITICISES LEAGUE Condemnation of the. Port Christchurch League's proposal for a referendum on the subject of a port at the Estuary was expressed by the Mayor, Mr J. W. Beanland, at a meeting of the Citizens' Unemployment Committee yesterday morning. The question' was raised in a report made by Mr W. E. Leadley on a meeting with the league attended by himself and Mr Wl W. Scarff as members of a deputation from the! committee. They had found that steps had been taken to frame bills for submission to the Government, and that the league had asked for a referendum. It was found that the Tunnel Road Committee was also approaching the Government with a request for early action. The deputation assured the league that the Citizens' Unemployment Committee could not take sides officially on the question, but its attitude was that it was anxious to find a common ground on which action could be taken with the object of getting something done.

"I think it is absolute presumption to ask the Lyttelton. Harbour Board to find the money for a referendum," said Mr Beanland. "It is the most absurd thing I have ever heard of."

"I should say there are not more than two solid men behind the Port Christchurch scheme," commented Mr Scarff.

Mr G. Maginness said that from the committee's point of view, either means of access to the sea, whether by a port at the Estuary or by a tunnel road to Lyttelton, would provide useful work for unemployed men. It was necessary, however, to find out what the people of Canterbury wanted.

Mr Beanland said that it was important to consider the possibility of failure of the port scheme, since a sum of between £1,000,000 and £1,500,000 would probably be spent upon it if it were adopted. It would mean that 120,000 people in. Christchurch might have to pay the excess charges if the scheme was not a success. It was no use talking about the country people as they did not care.

The following resolution was then carried unanimously:—"That in the opinion of this committee the question of providing better access to the sea for Christchurch and surrounding districts is one which will provide useful and necessary work adjacent to the city for a large number of men. The committee therefore urges the Government to investigate the matter with a view to providing such employment as early as possible." Copies of the resolution are to be sent to the Prime Minister, the Hon. M. J. Savage, the Minister for Employment, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, and the Minister for Public Works, the Hon. R. Semple.

MAYOR'S COMMENT ANSWERED

CASE FOR THE ESTUARY PORT

STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN OF LEAGUE

Claiming that the proposals of his league made fewer claims upon the financial assistance of the Government, and that a referendum of residents would allow Canterbury to proceed with the job of getting better access to the sea, Mr J. Longton, chairman of the Port Christchurch League, made a statement last evening in reply to criticism by the Mayor (Mr J. W. Beanland) and Mr W. W. Scarff of the suggested referendum on the league's plan for an estuary port. "I should first like to point out to Mr Beanland that abuse is no argument and that both he and Mr Scarff should make themselves acquainted with the proposals of the league before starting to talk of things of which they know nothing," said Mr Longton. "The Port Christchurch scheme has previously been supported by the Christchurch Unemployment Committee as suitable for providing work for the unemployed. Both the Port Christchurch and the tunnel road scheme have been submitted to the Government as a means of finding work at standard rates of pay. A deputation was informed by the Hon. R. Semple that he considered a referendum should be taken on the matter. The Port Christchurch League approached the tunnel road authorities aeking them to co-operate with the league in obtaining a referendum at the earliest possible moment, to which the tunnel road authorities did not reply. The league was then forced to initiate a referendum itself, and it promoted a bill which is open for inspection at the Magistrate's Court and at the office of the league.

"It is quite evident that neither the Mayor nor Mr Scarff has taken the trouble to peruse the bill or to inspect the documents lodged with it." continued Mr Longton. Government's Position "The tunnel road authoriites were told definitely by the Government that the Government will not provide .the whole of the cost of the tunnel road scheme, and no one connected with the tunnel road proposal has shown how it is going to procure the finance for the balance of the money required. The Government has stated that it expects the people of Canterbury to provide half the cost of any scheme undertaken. Mr Savage told the tunnel road deputation that .something would be done before many years, but he did not say that the tunnel road was the right scheme. "The proposals of the league show that a similar amount to that required for the tunnel road— £SO0 t ooo—can be provided by the community without further cost and with the help of the Government to the extent of £250,000, instead of £500,000, the amount required by »ie tunnel road sponsors. The Port Christchurch scheme would not add to the burden on the city, and would be the means of saving £250,000 a year in railage and cartage.

"Mr Beanlancl, as Mayor, should remember that he is speaking for the City Council, and not his own personal opinion, and the same applies to Mr Scarff. Thgy are both supporters of the tunnel road. Ministers' Support

"Now we have the Hon. D. G. Sullivan, the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, and the Hon. F. Jones,,' all Ministers of the Government, definitely in favour "of a referendum, in addition to which we have Mr E. J. Howard, chairman of the Harbour Board, also supporting a referendum, though personally he thinks the cost should bs spread over local bodies in the harbour area, instead of being borne by the Harbour Board. We pointed out to Mr Howard that to meet the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives it was necessary to proceed with the bill, but that we were'prepared to accept any amendr rnents by the House as to who should

bear the cost," Mr Longton continued. "Mr Beanland and Mr Scarf! should be the last two persons in the world to say that the spending of any money on a scheme to provide work for the unemployed is ridiculous," he said, "for they more than any other two men are responsible for the ridiculous position in which the causeway between Redeliffs and Mount Pleasant now is."